1920-04-09

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. E. W. NESBITT (Oxford N.), the First Report of the Special Committee, appointed to consider the question of continuing the War Bonus now being paid to pensioners and to continue the inquiries relating to Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment, presented to the House on Thursday, 8th April, was concurred in.
- RETURNED SOLDIERS-CASH GRATUITIES.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Rt. Hon. Sir GEORGE FOSTER (Acting Prime Minister):: Before the Orders of the Day are called, Mr. Speaker, I desire with the indulgence of the House, to make a short statement with reference to the payment of gratuities or bonuses to returned soldiers.
Two representations have been placed before the Government, one by the Great War Veterans' Association, based upon resolutions passed at their meeting in Montreal, and another by representatives of a number of soldiers' organizations whose headquarters are in Toronto. Both of these representations contemplate the payment of a cash gratuity or bonus to all returned soldiers, and although there are differences as to the amounts of these bonuses requested and the bases upon which the amounts aTe arrived at, yet the representations are both generically the same in the fact that they ask for a cash gratuity to be paid to the individual soldier.
The opinion of the Government was fairly well expressed at the last session of Parliament after a long and very careful examination into the whole subject of readjustment, reconstitution, and relief by a committee of this House. At that time it was intimated that the Government was not in favour of such a cash payment of a bonus or gratuity. Since then the Government has given additional care and consideration to the matter and has come to the conclusion that it cannot change its mind with reference to the payment of a cash gratuity. There are various reasons for the Government's stand. We must take into account the financial conditions of the country and all the other interests that

have accumulated, and that press upon the Government and the Parliament of Canada from different points of view. And in this respect the indeterminate amount, running anywhere from $400,000,000 to a billion of dollars or more, which would be involved in the proposed cash payment of gratuities, has to be taken into consideration, and it forms an essential factor in the conclusion that is to be based upon an investigation of the matter.
The Government is not and never has been of the opinion that the best way to reconstitute, readjust, and re-establish the returned soldieT is by placing in his hand a sum of money over which there should be no governmental supervision, and without any reference to the peculiar and differing conditions and circumstances of each returned soldier. In this respect the Government has not changed its mind, and consequently the reply to both the requests that have been made must be in the negative so far as a cash gratuity or bonus is concerned.
From the time that war casualties began to come in, and when the approaching end of the war was becoming a matter of comparative certainty, and since the Armistice and the consequent demobilization of the soldiers, the Government has not been remiss in giving its most careful attention, with all the sympathy and ability it pos sessed, to the question of the re-establishment of our men who have returned from overseas, caring for their dependents and those of the men who unfortunately never returned. Whether its conclusions have always been wise or not, it has had perforce to. come to conclusions, and to the best of its ability it has put into operation certain forms of relief, of readjustment, and of reconstitution. This policy the Government purposes to continue. Parliament has taken the matter up and by an influential and non-partisan committee it has made investigations into the pension system and various other forms of relief and help, and the benefit of the conclusions arrived at after much care and very thorough consideration has been at the disposal of the Government. This method of pursuing the question has not been abandoned. We have already appointed a pensions committee this year, composed mostly of the members of the former committee with some additional members, and to them has been assigned the duty of considering again the methods which have been so far adopted, and of 70
making a full investigation into the whole matter of the relief and re-establishment of our soldiers along these lines, with a view to ascertaining what amendments, if any, are necessary, what are the difficulties that are encountered, and how those difficulties may be as far as possible overcome. That duty is laid upon the committee for the present session of Parliament.
In so far as respects the provision of pensions and allowances and the re-establishment of the disabled returned soldier, and the relief which is necessary and which has been and will be cheerfully given to the dependents of both those who have fallen and those who have returned; in respect also to systems of relief provided for under the Land Settlement Act, and the work that is carried on by the Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment Department which is presided over by my colleague, 'Sir James Lougheed; all these forms of relief and of reconstitution including vocational training and encouragement to those who have been interrupted in the pursuit of their . profession and in their training, having as its object as far as possible to fit these men for the work which they will undertake, and the competition which they will encounter in life, and to compensate them as far as possible for the disadvantages which they have suffered-all these various questions will have the sympathy, the cooperation and the support of the Government.
I do not know that I need make any further extended remarks in respect to this matter. It is impossible to dispose of such an important and complicated question at one session, or at two sessions or at many sessions. The returned soldier and his problems are with us, and it remains for the Government, with the co-operation of the business men of the country, and particularly of Parliament	as
representing the people at large,	to
pursue what are deemed the sanest and best methods to the extent that this country can provide the funds and appliances that are necessary for the proper re-establishment of the soldiers. It is the duty as well as the privilege of the country to recognize the services of those who at great sacrifice have fought our fight and have borne the brunt of the great effort, the men for whom we should always cherish the most sympathetic and helpful disposition of mind.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: The question which has been raised by the right honour-

able, the Acting Prime Minister (Sir George Foster) is one upon which doubtless many hon. members would like to express an opinion. Do I understand that the hon. gentleman having availed himself of the privilege of presenting to the House a statement on the Orders of the Day, it is not permissible to discuss that statement in any particular at this time, but that another opportunity will be afforded?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: There will be another opportunity certainly.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: In reference to the statement made by the Acting Prime Minister regarding the returned soldiers, are we to understand that the question of a cash bonus has been taken entirely out of the hands of the committee?


George Green Foster: My hon. friend has heard the statement I made and it is a statement made on behalf of the Government. It is the position that the Government takes. I do not understand that the Pensions Committee as constituted has ever had the question of a cash bonus or gratuity directly referred to it.



WAR INDEMNITY-CANADA'S SHARE.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. P. R. DuTREMBLAY (Laurier-Outremont): Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct the attention of the Government to a question of considerable importance at the present time. I read in the Montreal press of yesterday the statement that Sir William Wiseman is on his way from Great Britain to Ottawa to settle the war indemnity question. In the early days of last session I brought to the attention of the Government the question of the indemnity that Canada would receive from Germany and the allies of that country and the right hon. the Acting Prime Minister (Sir George Foster) then replied that this country was well represented at the Peace Conference, that the demand would ibe pressed and that Canada would have justice. May I again ask the Acting Prime Minister if there is still hope or expectation that this country will receive an indemnity from Germany or possibly from England as some compensation for her sacrifices in case Germany fails to pay, and if this trip of Sir William Wiseman has anything to do with the share of the payment that Germany is making to this country?
George Green Foster: My hon. friend (Mr. DuTremblay) has asked questions to 
which I do not suppose he expects any definite answers. Taking the last one first, I know of no mission of Sir William Wiseman or any one else to Canada at the present time to determine in any way whatever what may be the compensation which will fall to Canada as a result of the ultimate payment of the indemnity by Germany or by the Central Powers. That is a matter that has to he worked out, as hon. gentlemen will see who have read the Peace Treaty, and it will take a considerable amount of trouble to work it out. It would never be worked out in the way which is suggested by the question of my hon. friend. The amount that Canada will receive in the end will depend upon the amount of the indemnity that these enemy powers will *be able to pay, the time at which it is paid, and the share which will come to Canada in connection and in participation with the other Entente Powers that were engaged in the war. I do not think I could give my hon. friend any fuller information than that. He will have to draw as best he can his own conclusions from what I have said.



DAYLIGHT SAVING.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG (East Lambton) :: I have received a number of telegrams and letters from western Ontario asking about the Daylight Saving Bill and protesting against it. I wish to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether such a Bill has been introduced or whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce such a Bill this session.


George Green Foster: No such Bill has been introduced and it is. not the present intention of the Government to introduce one. Conditions are somewhat different internationally from what they were before and in the meantime I am quite convinced that the progressive people in towns and cities, being free to adopt daylight saving, will be able to -do so according to their own circumstances and needs even if no general Bill is introduced.



INCOME TAX RETURN.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Joseph Archambault: I would like to ask the hon.
the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) if the forms for the income tax return for the use of farmers and ranchers have been printed in French. I received a letter to-day from a farmer living in Cantal, Saskatchewan, in which he states that he

has asked for such forms from the Income Tax Cbllector at Prince Albert who told him that there were none and that unless he filled out the English form sent to him proceedings would be taken.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Will the hon.
gentleman let me have the letter, the name and the address and I will be pleased to have it rectified.



COMMITTEE ON PENSIONS AND REPATRIATION.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. A. CURRIE (North Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to call the attention of the right hon. the acting leader of the Government (Sir George Foster) to an article that appeared in the Ottawa papers this morning purporting to give a report of a meeting of the committee of this House on Pensions and Repatriation in which it was stated that one of the members of the committee, the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Lang), having expressed himself in opposition to the matters that were referred to the committee asked to be excused from serving on it and that the chairman, the hon. the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) prevailed on him to remain on the committee. I cannot understand how that can be in view of Rule 11 as contained in the Book of Rules and I wish to know what the opinion of the Acting Prime Minister is in reference to that question. The book of rules says clearly that no man who has expressed a view on a question can be appointed to a committee.


George Green Foster: My hon. friend (Mr. Currie) has asked rather an involved-


John Allister Currie: No, it is not involved; it is a straight question.


George Green Foster: -and important question. I had not noticed what my hon. friend has referred to in the paper and therefore I cannot give a reply to what is involved in it. If my hon. friend will repeat his question at the next sitting of the House a reply will be ready for him. He will see that it is quite impossible to give an answer if attention has not been directed to it beforehand.


John Allister Currie: It is an old rule of the House that has been violated.


George Green Foster: If it is a rule of the House, why, of course, it stands.



EAST ELGIN ELECTION WRIT.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. Mr. KING:: Has the Government reached any decision as to when it intends to issue the writ for the election to fill the vacancy existing in East Elgin so as to give the electors of that constituency the right of representation?	>


George Green Foster: I must answer my hon. friend by saying that the Government has not yet come to any conclusion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is high time.


Mr. FIELDING:: What is the trouble in East Elgin?



AGRICULTURAL GAZETTE.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. SUTHERLAND:: I would like to inquire if the Agricultural Gazette is now being printed in the English language as the numbers I have received recently has been printed in French.


Hon. Mr. TOLMIE:: It is still printed in English, as far as I am aware.



DOMINION FRANCHISE ACT.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from April 8, consideration in committee of Bill No. 12 respecting the election of members of the House of Commons and the electoral franchise-Mr. Guthrie.
Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 39-disqualifications of candidates.
Mr. DEVLIN:: In order to make things
P'rfectly clear I would like to know from the Acting Solicitor General what his understanding is of the words " county crown attorney " found in paragraph (e) of subsection 1. In the province of Quebec, county crown attorneys are called crown prosecutors. In the cities they are appointed for a certain term of years, and in the rural districts for the sitting of the court. Would they be included under this designation of " county crown attorney " and thus rendered ineligible as candidates at an election?
Mr. GUTHRIE Paragraph (e) is intended to apply to officers holding permanent appointments under local governments. I do not know what the situation in the province of Quebec is upon this point but I think that in all the other provinces-it certainly is so in the province of Ontario -they are permanent appointees of the

Government. The term " county crown attorney " does not include a town prosecutor who represents the attorney-general of the province at a particular assize for the conduct of particular business; he is not disqualified.	[DOT]


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In paragraph (a) of subsection 2 there is no reference made to the office of Prime Minister although all the other members of the Cabinet are mentioned, neither is there any reference to the office of Minister of Health. 'Is there any particular reason for these omissions?


John Allister Currie: While we are on
the question of public officers I may say that the provision in question was inserted in the old Act as a matter of retaliation. At that time all the officers in the province of Ontario were Liberals appointed by a Liberal government.	Certain federal officers were disqualified by the ~ Liberals in the Ontario ( Elections Act from voting in Provincial elections and when the Conservative Government was making an Election Act for the Dominion it retaliated by inserting a clause in the Federal Act providing that officers appointed by the local Administration should not be allowed to vote in Dominion elections. I think the time has gone for-


Mr. GUTHRIE:: This paragraph does not apply to voting.


John Allister Currie: There was a similar
clause with reference to voting. Officers of the Ontario Government were not allowed to vote in the Dominion elections and federal officers were not allowed to vote in the Ontario elections. I think when we are framing a new Act of this character we should start with a clean sheet. I do not see any reason why a sheriff or a registrar of deeds, provided he decided to resign from his office, should not be permitted to run for Parliament.


Hugh Guthrie: The paragraph says:
Every person holding the office of sheriff-
-and so on. I see no reason why the sheriff, registrar, or county crown attorney, if he resigns from his office should not become a candidate for this House. This paragraph, however, does not interfere with the man who resigns from office. It is only a provision against men holding crown appointments, the presumption being that their time is entirely taken up with the duties of the office which they hold and for which they are paid.

In regard to the leader of the Opposition's point that the Prime Minister is not mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection 2, I may say the reason for that is that the Prime Minister holds some other portfolio in the Cabinet.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING /Not at present.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: He is President of the Privy Council as a rule.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He may not always be.


Hugh Guthrie: Whether he does hold any other office at the moment does not affect the proposed legislation. If at the time this Act comes into force the Prims Minister does not hold any other office this subsection might disqualify him. This is a copy of the old section, and I think in the past the custom has always been for the Prime Minister to hold one of the portfolios enumerated in the subsection. At present the Prime Minister holds the portfolio of External Affairs.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think in the past the Prime Minister has usually been President of the Council, but in this Administration he has given up that office to one of his colleagues. It is quite conceivable that the Prime Minister of a future Administration might not hold any portfolio, and in that event the Bill in its present form would disqualify him.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not see any objection to including the term "Prime Minister;" but as a matter of fact the Prime Minister now does occupy the position of Minister of External Affairs.


William Stevens Fielding: I think that in the general organization of our service the office of Prime Minister is not recognized; the only recognition is found in the special salary voted for the office. In fact the office of Prime Minister is a constitutional and not a statutory office. But my hon. friend the Acting Solicitor General is right when he says that hitherto the Prime Minister has always been the occupant of one of the offices enumerated in the subsection. I might cite by way of illustration what has occurred in the province of Quebec. The Prime Minister, Sir Lomer Gouin, was also Attorney-General, but there came a time when he surrendered the latter portfolio. Then it was found that he was not eligible to receive any salary, and a special Act had to be passed recognizing the office of Prime Minister. Here the Prime Minister has always been the holder of one of the

portfolios set out in the suhsedtion, and it may not be necessary to make any change in the wording, but it is worth while to remember what occurred in the province of Quebec.


Hugh Guthrie: As the office of Prime Minister is not recognized-by our law-


William Stevens Fielding: Except in regard to salary.


Hugh Guthrie: -I think i!t might as well be omitted here. If any difficulty should arise in the future the subsection could be very readily amended. We are following the wording of the former section, and there the office of Prime Minister was not mentioned.


William Stevens Fielding: If you recognize the office of Prime Minister here are you not creating a new department? That gives it recognition as a distinct department, and although it may be wise to do so, it has never been so recognized in the past.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would like to draw attention to the other portfolio I mentioned, that of Minister of Health. It is true that at the present time the Minister of Health holds another portfolio, but if there should ever be a minister holding only that portfolio he might come under the disqualifying clause.


Mr. ROWELL:: My recollection of the terms of the Act relating to the Department of Health is that it contemplates the department being presided over by a minister who presides over some other department of the Government as well. I have not the .Act before me and cannot recall its exact language, but I think it is framed in that way.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My point is simply this: Supposing at any time the office of Minister of Health should be made a separate office of the Administration, then we would have to amend this Act. So why not amend it now?


Hugh Guthrie: It has been brought to ,my attention that this question was discussed with Mr. Gisborne, Parliamentary Counsel, and he was of opinion that by the terms of the Health Aot under which the Minister of Health is appointed it would be improper to include that office in this section.


William Stevens Fielding: If the words of the Health Act are as my hon. friend the President of the Privy Council remembers them, that is, that the Department of Health
,should be presided over by such minister as may be assigned to it, then by inference he is a minister holding a portfolio. But it is worth while remembering that occasionally we have ministers of the Crown who do not hold portfolios, and under the words quoted by my hon. friend a minister holding office without portfolio could be transferred to the Department of Health, and thereby be made a salaried officer. That is quite possible under the President of the Council's own interpretation.


Newton Wesley Rowell: There is no salary provided for the Minister of Health as such. So in any case if a minister were appointed he would not be disqualified under this clause, because in the absence of legislation providing for a salary in connection with the Ministry of Health, he could not draw a salary, unless presiding over some other department of the Government.


Mr. JACOBS:: I notice by subsection (d) that among the persons ineligible as candidates are members of the legislature of any province during the time they are such members. Will the minister explain why it is that members of the legislature can he appointed to the Senate and yet not be eligible as candidates for the House of Commons?


Hugh Guthrie: I was not aware that any
member of the legislature could be appointed a senator. I know that shortly after Confederation the question of members of the legislature sitting in this House was discussed, and an Act was at that time passed declaring them to be ineligible, which law has been carried forward from 1870 down to the present time.


Samuel William Jacobs: Might I remind the hon. minister that the Hon. Mr. Chapais, a member of the Legislative Council of Quebec, was appointed to the Senate only a short time ago by this very Government of which the Acting Solicitor General is a member.


Hugh Guthrie: I was not aware of it.


Samuel William Jacobs: The hon. minister is a
member of the Government which made the appointment. He has just told us the theory of ineligibility of candidates occupying other positions, that their time is so much taken up with other duties that they ought not to be candidates for seats in this House. We in the province of Quebec do not see why we should be deprived of the valuable services of the Hon. Mr. Chapais in this way, Eor he is now asked to divide his services between the Legislature of Quebec and the Parliament of Canada. The one particular

qualification that the hon. gentleman possesses so far as I know, is that he is a son-in-law of the late Regretted' Sir Hector Langevin.
M.r. FIELDING: The law has made a distinction between the Senate and the House of Commons for a great many years. For example, the late Senator DeBoucher-ville, up to the time of his death, was both a member of the Senate and of the Legislative Council of Quebec. So it appears that while it is thought to be improper to allow a member of the legislature to sit in this House, it is not considered improper for him to be appointed to the Senate. Like my hon. friend for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs), I cannot see any reason for the distinction, but it has been the law and the practice for many years.


Hugh Guthrie: I was not aware of it.


Mr. A. THOMPSON:: I would like to draw the attention of the Acting Solicitor General to subsection 2 (c) of section 39:
A shareholder fn any incorporated company having a contract or agreement with the Government of Canada, except any company which undertakes a contract for the building of any public work-
As I read this section such an individual would be disqualified. Is the wording of this subsection the same as that in the old Act?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, it is.


Alfred Thompson: So that a shareholder in any company having a contract with the Government-


Hugh Guthrie: "For the building of any public work."


Alfred Thompson: No, that is excepted here. This says, as I read it, that an individual will be disqualified as a candidate if he is a shareholder in any incorporated company having a contract or agreement with the Government of Canada, except any company which undertakes a contract for the building of any public work.


Hugh Guthrie: Under the wording of
subsection 2 a shareholder in any company, undertaking any contract such as is mentioned in the exception, is ineligible.


William Stevens Fielding: "Public work" means a work for the Dominion Government, I take it.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


Mr. PROULX:: I would like the section to go further and include directors of all companies which have contracts with the 
Government, not only for the building of public works, but also for the furnishing of supplies of any kind. It might be a hardship to disqualify every shareholder, because some shareholders have only a small interest in the company. But as an illustration, I may point out that during the war some members of Parliament were directors of and shareholders in incorporated companies which had large dealings with various departments of the Government in connection with the furnishing of supplies. I would like to see the clause amended to include all persons who are directors of or have a controlling interest in any company which has contracts with the Government.


Hugh Guthrie: In order to correct some clerical errors, I move that section 39 be amended by substituting the word " section " for the word " subsection " at the end of line 36 on page 28, and by striking out in the second line on page 29 the following words: " or shall disqualify any such person to sit or vote in the House of Commons ".


Joseph Archambault: Were these vtords in the old Act?


Hugh Guthrie: They are in the House of Commons Act; they should not be in the Franchise Act.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: In the old Act the period of disqualification for corrupt practices was seven years; in this Bill it is eight years. Is there any reason for that change?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not know why the change should be made. The Disfranchising Act provides for a period of seven years;
I think it should be the same in this case. If the committee will agree, I suggest that the word " seven " be substituted for the word " eight " in line 41 on page 27-.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. DENIS:: I have a few remarks to
make which I am afraid will take me nowhere, but I cannot let this clause pass without making my views known to the committee. Paragraph (a) of subsection 1 provides that a candidate may be disqualified for a period of seven years if he is found guilty of any corrupt act. On the face of it, this clause appeals to any honest and straightforward man, because he is apt to say at once that any man who perpetrates an election fraud should be disqualified for seven years. But I have always

thought that this provision of the law was nothing but a bait for the blackmailers, and I am still of that opinion. I ask this committee whether pure politics have ever been obtained through the operation of this clause? The answer is no. I ask this committee whether a candidate is sufficiently protected against , conspiracy by this clause? Again the answer is no. If, ihsre-fore, no end has ever been attained by this clause, and if it is nothing more than a powerful instrument in the hands of blackmailers, I see no reason why the law should not be changed. I am not asking that it be so changed as to permit candidates or anybody else in an election to practice corruption without being subject to the law. But my experience has been-and 1 il'now that in this contention I shall be supported by many members of the committee-that contestation of elections and especially the demand in a contestation that a candidate be disqualified, has never led anywhere but to blackmail. No one has ever seriously contended when instituting a contestation of election that the candidates should be disqualified it is enough that the election be annulled. The question may be asked, what if the candidate is guilty? Well, it is the easiest thing in the world to frame up a conspiracy against a candidate, and in such a case the candidate cannot protect himself. Taking it for granted that no member of ti:is committee ever committed a fraud in an election-I am sure that none did-I am not rfraid of contradiction when I say that if conspiracies had been organized against several of us, many might have been found guilty. It is very easy during an election campaign to get, say two men who are willing to commit perjury and to have them follow a certain candidate. If those two conspirators are able to hold a conversation with that candidate, just the three of them being together at the time, and those two men are willing to go before a court of justice and swear that that candidate offered one of them a five dollar bill for his vote, that candidate will be disqualified for seven years. Am I telling the truth or not? I am telling the truth and I know what I am saying. Of course, the evidence of the men will always be subjected to the general principles of evidence, and it will always be left for the judge to decide whether or not it is reasonable or. probable that the candidate under such circumstances might have offered a five dollar bill to one of the two men; but if the proof is made, it will be for the judge to come to a decision, and
if the judge comes to the conclusion that the evidence is against the candidate, the candidate will be disqualified for seven years. I am no better than any hon. member on this committee; I am no worse; but every time I have been in the political field either for myself or for anybody else, I have always been afraid of these schemes, not because I felt that I was guilty, but because I was conscious as I am now conscious-


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, oh.


Jean-Joseph Denis: My hon. friend is laughing. Perhaps the reason why he laughs is because he does not understand what I am saying. I have always been afraid of these schemes, because I know that any set of men, organized through detectives or otherwise, can track a candidate and have him disqualified after the election if they choose to do so, no matter whether the candidate be guilty or not. This is opening the door to conspiracies and it brings no good result.


George Green Foster: My hon. friend is putting up a case which is, I suppose, a hypothetical one. Has he any experience where, in the great multitude of elections that have taken place, such a trick has been successfully carried out and a candidate disqualified by reason of it? Has it worked out in experience as it might in theory?


Jean-Joseph Denis: In my practice as a barrister I have come across cases similar to this, although they were not cases in connection with election contests; but what was done in civil matters, what was done in criminal matters, could very well be done in electoral matters. I am simply drawing a general inference from what my experience as a lawyer has taught me, and applying it to this legislation, I say that this provision is dangerous.


Mr. BURNHAM:: Is the hon. member not aware that that very weakness to which he refers runs through all law and all the affairs of life, and that it was because Titus Oates, Bedloe and Dangerfield could do things like that, that so many men were sent to the block and had their heads chopped off, not for eight years, but forever?
Mr. ' DENTS: I was just coming to the point raised by my hon. friend. But the difference is this: When we are in civil matters, there is only a question of money involved. I consider this clause worse than a clause in the Criminal Code; it is

worse for a candidate who has been rightfully and honestly elected to be disqualified afterwards than to lose any money he may have in the world. Although the law, generally speaking, is the same as what I am objecting to now, yet, taking 4 p.m. into consideration the fact that this matter is exceedingly important, I would not have a candidate placed in the position where a conspiracy might he framed up against him, either by his adversaries or by anybody else. I said at the beginning of my remarks that I did not believe that the committee would share my views; but I want to put myself on record on this point, and perhaps some day will come when it will be found that there are reasons for fearing that what I have stated may happen. The acting Prime Minister (Sir George Foster) asked me a few minutes ago whether I knew of any particular cases. I am not conversant with all the electoral cases in the Dominion of Canada, but under a law framed like this it is always very dangerous for a candidate to go electioneering alone without anybody as a witness with him to protect him. That seems strange, but it is true.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 40-nomination of candidates.
William Stevens Fielding: With regard to subclause I, I presume that is the existing law, but these are days of reform. Subclause 1 reads:
At every general election he-
That is the Governor General in Council.
-shall for such purpose fix one and the same day in all electoral districts.
That is a very wise rule. Why should it not apply also to the case of a number of bye-elections occurring at the same time? For instance, why should we to-day be deprived of the pleasure of having a representative of East Elgin in the House of Commons? What reason can be given why the people of Temiskaming can have a member but the people of East Elgin cannot? I would suggest to the Acting Solicitor General that a clause be added to provide that wherever there are several vacancies at the same time the elections should be held on the same day. I do not think there is any answer to that argument. If it is a good argument in the case of a general election it holds equally good where a number of vacancies occur.


Mr. CROTHERS:: What would the hon. member say in the case of a vacancy oc purring a week before the election?


William Stevens Fielding: That is a matter of detail. Where there are a number of bye-elections they should be held simultaneously. We have to-day a vacancy in East Elgin. What reason can be given for keeping that constituency vacant while members are to be allowed to represent Temiskaming and St. James? The Acting Prime Minister was asked to-day if he could' say when the writ woujd be issued for East Elgin, and he replied quite truly that he did not know. Is that good politics? I submit to the Acting Solicitor General that in the spirit in which he has invited suggestions he ought to accept the proposal I make.


Hugh Guthrie: As a matter of fact 1
do not think there is anything in the suggestion. If the vacancies in the bye-elections all occurred on the same day there might be something in the suggestion. But Parliament in its wisdom last session de-cidede on a course, having considered the question in special committee, and also in debate in the House. The course decided on by the House is a great improvement on the practice of former years, providing as it does that a bye-election must take place within six months of the occurrence of the vacancy. I think that is a pretty good solution of any difficulty which existed in the past. Six months is not a long time for a constituency to be vacant, for my hon. friend from Queen's and Shelburne knows, that in Ifehe past constdtuein-cdes have been kept open for years.


William Stevens Fielding: I know that, but I say that this is a time for reform.


Hugh Guthrie: And we have reformed
the practice. We reformed it as recently as last autumn, and having then deliberately adopted a course which I am confident is an improvement we should at least give the new system a trial.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend is
wrong. We did not deal with this question last autumn. We dealt with the question of the period of time within which the writ must be issued. Where a number of vacancies have occurred and are existing at the same time, a reasonable time having elapsed since their occurrence, what good reason can be given for the Government's selecting one day for one by-election and another day for another?


Hugh Guthrie: What good reason can
be urged against it?'


William Stevens Fielding: The same reason that
applies to general elections. We would not give the Government power to choose differ-

ent dates for elections in the various constituencies at a general election. We select one day, and if there is a good reason for this procedure it ought to apply where two or three vacancies exist at the same time, though not necessarily having occurred simultaneously.


Hugh Guthrie: If there were a large number of vacancies the Government might bring on by-elections in its favoured places where it was sure to carry constituencies for the purpose of influencing the general result. But for the life of me I cannot see what influence there would be as between two or three by-elections, and it will be very rare in the history of this country that in any six months' period we shall likely have three by-elections. It is possible; it has happened already; but it is very unusual to have three by-elections in a six months' period.


William Stevens Fielding: You do not need any better illustration of the matter than that which exists now in East Elgin, which has been vacant for a number of weeks.


Hugh Guthrie: Parliament said it might be vacant for six months.


William Stevens Fielding: Parliament says a
thousand things that may be wrong and we are here to correct such things. Otherwise we should have no function at all.
Mr. H. A. MA.OK1E: In the case of East Edmonton, would the hon. member suggest that a denite date should be fixed, making it absolutely necessary to hold a by-election there to synchronize with by-elections in other places? You could not get half the people to the polls.


William Stevens Fielding: I say that after vacancies have existed for a certain reasonable period the elections should be held simultaneously. I do not think that the Government ought to take upon themselves the power to pick out certain dates for the holding of by-elections where they think the results will be favourable to themselves. I know this was done in times past. I am not a "holier than thou" man, and I admit that I did it myself when I was a minister. But that is no reason why we should not reform practices that are bad, and il am sorry that the Acting Solicitor General, having given us such a cordial invitation to offer suggestions which we might think necessary, should refuse to adopt a very necessary reform.
Mr. GUTHiRIEi: That is a matter of opinion. 'I do not think the proposal is one
in the nature of a reform. Last autumn a special committee of the House sat on several occasions. I was chairman of the committee and we considered the whole matter and came to certain conclusions which received the unanimous approval of the House. Why should we then go back on the system we adopted three or four months ago? My hon. friend has not urged anything that was not urged before the special committee.


William Stevens Fielding: Last year we did not deal with the point under discussion. We simply fixed the time within which the writ must be issued. If my hon. friend cannot see the force of the illustration I have given in the present vacancy in East Elgin, then I think it is hopeless to expect that he will be persuaded into accepting my proposal.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is there any purpose in elections at all, other than to give representation to the constituencies in the country? That is the purpose of a general election and it is also the purpose of every by-election. I understand my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) to emphasize the point; that as a result of the Government's administration of the existing law, some constituencies in which there have been vacancies will soon be represented in this Parliament, while another unrepresented constituency will! be deprived of that right. If the Government were willing to observe the fundamental principle of elections they would give the electors in East Elgin the right to be represented. But the Government are denying them that right by refusing to issue the writ for the election in that constituency, and this is something against which we should all strenuously protest. On behalf of the electors of East Elgin, as part of the people of Canada, I think the Government should as soon as possible take steps to have that constituency - represented in Parliament.


Edmond Proulx: The term of this Parliament is five years, and I think it would be well to have the general election on a fixed date every five years. The Government of Ontario is proposing to have provincial elections at fixed dates.


Hugh Guthrie: A lot of things are being proposed there.


William Stevens Fielding: Is there any change in subsection 9? My recollection is that the unfortunate candidate who loses his deposit only gets it back from the Auditor

General. The successful candidate is generally very promptly supplied with his by the sheriff or returning officer. Subsection 9 says that the returning officer shall give to the candidate or his agent a receipt for his deposit and send the money to the Auditor General.


Hugh Guthrie: The old section was section 98:
The sum so deposited by any candidate shall be returned in the event of his being elected or of his obtaining a number of votes at least equal to one-half the number of votes polled in favour of the candidate elected; otherwise, except in the case hereinafter provided for, it shall belong to His Majesty for the public uses of Canada, and shall be applied by the returning officer towards the payment of the election expenses, and an account thereof shall be rendered by him to the Auditor General of Canada.
I think under that he would get it back from the returning officer. Under the proposal as contained in the Bill he would only get it back from the Auditor 'General.


William Stevens Fielding: There may be some
reason for it.


Hugh Guthrie: I think there was a reason.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The reason is given in the previous section. Now the deposit is made with the Receiver General instead of the returning officer.


Mr. H. A. MACKIE:: Is there any provision for deferred elections?


Hugh Guthrie: There is later on.


Mr. PARDEE:: Under section 40 it is provided that:
The Governor General In Council shall fix the day for the nomination of candidates and it shall be named in the writ of election.
Then section 55 provides that:
The poll shall be held on the fourteenth day next after the expiration of the day fixed for the nomination of candidates.
That is just two weeks. Is there any time provided between the issue of the writ and the nomination day?


Hugh Guthrie: No, the Governor in Council must fix that date.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Might not the Governor in Council fix it just a day or two prior to nomination?


Hugh Guthrie: No, he cannot do that; he must count up the days necessary for the preparation of the lists. My estimate is that 29 days are necessary under the Act.
]Mr.' Fisiding.f


Mr. GLASS:: I would like to call the attention of the minister to subsection 2 of section 40, which says:
The place fixed for the nomination of candidates shall be the court house, city or town hall, or some other public or private building.
I submit that the words "private building" are rather vague and indefinite and that a returning officer who was disposed to be unfair might try to hold the nomination in a private house, a stable or any other place which might be inappropriate. In almost all the electoral districts there are certain public buildings, such as the town hall. I presume that a school house would be considered a public building. I think the words "public building" are too indefinite and might under some special circumstances be taken advantage of by a returning officer to hold the nomination in a place where the electors could not conveniently assemble to do justice to an occasion of that kind. I do not think the use of the words "private building" is necessary at all, because I believe there will be a public building in every district and doubtless there will be a school house.


Hugh Guthrie: Suppose there was not? This is the old section and it is only an extra safeguard. If there are no public building it might be held in a private building. Suppose a storm blew the public building down?


Jean-Joseph Denis: It should at least be stipulated that a private building can only be used where there was no public building. This provision does not exist in the Act now?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, it is the same section exactly as section 92 of the old Act.


William Stevens Fielding: There might be difficulty in getting a public building available. I presume that is the object.


Hugh Guthrie: In some of the larger
constituencies in the West the public building might be at one end of the constituency whereas a private building in a central part of the riding might be more conveniently used.


Jean-Joseph Denis: Where there is a court
house is it optional on the part of the returning officer to hold the meeting in a private building?


Hugh Guthrie: I suppose under the clause he could do so if he so determined.


Jean-Joseph Denis: It should not be optional.


Hugh Guthrie: I am told there are
counties where the court house is in a most isolated place and where there are no people.


Jean-Joseph Denis: It should not be left optional on the part of the returning officer to choose a private residence where there are public buildings in a locality.


Hugh Guthrie: It is optional as the
clause is drawn. I do not think any difficulty can arise over this. It never has in the past in so far as I have known.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Under the old Act 25 electors were obliged to sign a nomination paper. By the present Bill the number is reduced to 10. Is there any special reason for that?


Hugh Guthrie: The only reason is that in some of our remote districts where the population is scattered it is sometimes difficult to get 25. There is no more reason why 25 should sign than why 10 should not sign. Ten is just as good as 25.


Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR:: T wish to say a
word in support of the proposal of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) for simultaneous by-elections. I think it is a good one. The law that exists to-day gives an advantage to the party that happens to be in power. Take a case where there are two vacancies; one is in a constituency that would be expected to support the Government, while the other one is doubtful. The Government announces a by-election in the constituency which will give them the seat so that it will influence the result of the election in the second constituency. That is the use that is made of the present law and it is an advantage that the Government should not have. It opens the way to manipulation. The proposal of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's is against manipulation and I endorse his proposal.


Hugh Guthrie: There is a clerical error in line 10 on page 30 of the Bill. The words "in the notice" appear there. The word "notice" should be "proclamation." I move that "notice" be struck out and " proclamation" substituted therefor.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Hugh Guthrie: Another amendment is necessary in line 46 on the same page. The present reading is " where such person is absent from the province." The word " province" should be struck out and the words "electoral district " inserted to make
the paragraph accord with paragraph (c) of subsection 6.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Hugh Guthrie: Then in line 16 on page 31 of the Bill the first four words are " of the candidate elected." The word "the" should be struck out and the word "a" substituted therefor. The reason for that change is that in some constituencies two members are returned, and if we use the word "a" instead of the word "the" it will apply to such a constituency.	[DOT]


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Hugh Guthrie: A change has been suggested by the Parliamentary Counsel in line 26, that before the first word "agent" the word "the" should be inserted.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN:: Shall the clause as
amended carry?


Jean-Joseph Denis: The $200 deposit required of a candidate is the same amount as in the old law and my recollection is that this sum has been demanded for a great many years past. But now the high cost of living becomes a factor in the situation. The value of money is only derived from its buying power, and I submit that to-day $500 has no greater buying power than $200 had when this amount was fixed in the first instance as the deposit required of a candidate. Consequently to-day a deposit of $500 would not mean more in value than $200 did years ago. For that reason I would ask that the deposit be made $500 instead of $200. I have an additional reason for urging the change and it is this: Members of the committee will be surprised to hear that 169 deposits were lost in the last general election. In other words 169 candidates throughout the whole of Canada ran at elections without being able to procure half the votes of the candidate elected. The figures by provinces were: Ontario, 51; Quebec, 54; Nova Scotia, 5; New Brunswick, 9; Manitoba, 12; British Columbia, 18; Saskatchewan, 11; Alberta, 9; and in the beautiful province of Prince Edward Island there were none. Consequently if you take it for granted that the candidate who loses his deposit is not a serious candidate before the law-and he is not a serious candidate because if he were he would |be entitled to the return of his deposit-why should that candidate's deposit be confiscated when he does not secure half the votes of the winning candidate? It is because the law takes it

for granted that he is a candidate who should not have run; that he is not a serious candidate and therefore should not be in the field. Otherwise I cannot understand the meaning of the law. Hence we must come to the conclusion that 169 candidates ran in the last general election who should not have run. For that reason I would make the suggestion that the deposit he increased from $200 to $500. I have pointed out the objections to making the field too wide. Are there any objections to fixing the candi^ date's deposit at $500? I ask any member of the committee is there a candidate in this country who will not be able to provide himself with $500 to make his deposit in the next general election? I answer No, because the candidate is not anordinary man. If a man has no standing or has no friends, if he does not amount to anything, he will not be a candidate. I think, therefore, that in the interest of the maintenance of the good standing of elections generally and in order to avoid "fake" candidates, if I may use this term, I think the deposit should be raised.


Mr. SEXSMITH:: Does the hon. gentleman think a man would have no standing in the community at all because he might perhaps not be in a position to make a deposit of $500?


Jean-Joseph Denis: I am very glad to answer my hon. friend. I ask him if, in his lifetime, he ever heard of a serious candidate who could not provide $500 for his deposit?


John Albert Sexsmith: I am not in a position to answer that question, but I would ask the hon. gentleman whether he suggests that the 169 candidates who lost their deposits in the last general election were undesirable persons?


Jean-Joseph Denis: Not by any means, but I suggest that several of them should not have run. I am merely taking what is embodied in the law. If it is desirable for any one to be a candidate let us strike out the requirement for a deposit altogether; I have no objection to doing that. But the provision for the deposit either means something or it means nothing. If the former, let us deal with it seriously. If it does not mean anything I have not the least objection to propose striking out the requirement for a deposit altogether, in fact I would be one of the first if that is the wish of the committee. But according to the provision of the law the deposit does mean something. It means that a candidate must be a serious man, must be a man of some standing in the com-

munity, must be a man with reasonable chance of winning the election otherwise he will lose his deposit. But taking the law as it is at present and accepting it in the sense that it purports to have, I say let us raise the deposit and make the law more effective. In so doing we are only following the tendency of the times because the $500 of today is only equal to the $200 of twenty years ago.


Mr. NESBITT:: I am glad to see there is one member of the House who can raise $500 as easy as he can raise $200.


Mr. G. B. NICHOLSON:: I think the
hon. gentleman (Mr. Denis) is entirely out of harmony with the spirit of the times. Instead of making it more difficult for reputable men who may not have sufficient money to become candidates in an election, it should be made more easy, if anything. There are plenty of good men in this country who are not too flush of money. If a man becomes a candidate he has to spend a certain amount of money in any case, and his position should not be made more difficult, to say the least.


Henry Arthur Mackie: Why has the change been made that at the close of nomination proceedings the returning officer shall forward by registered mail to the Auditor General of Canada the money or cheques so deposited with the names find addresses of the candidates who made the several deposits? Formerly the money was held by the returning officer.


Hugh Guthrie: I think in times gone by there has been some dissatisfaction in regard to the money being held by the returning officer-it has not always been very easy to get it from him.


Henry Arthur Mackie: The same thing
obtains regarding the Auditor General.


Hugh Guthrie: But you are sure there.


Henry Arthur Mackie: My experience has been that it takes six months or a year to get any answer from a department of the Government, and if the Auditor General's Department is not more speedy than the other departments I have had occasion to deal with, I think the returning officer would be just as satisfactory as the Auditor General in respect to handling these deposits.


John Albert Sexsmith: My hon. friend (Mr. Denis) who sat down a minute ago implied that in order to be a serious candidate it is necessary to be able to put up five hundred dollars deposit. In other words, if a

man is not in a financial position to make that deposit, he is not a serious candidate and should not be allowed to run. I would recommend striking out the clause altogether.


Jean-Joseph Denis: I am ready to second my hon. friend's suggestion. The law either means something or it means nothing. If it means something then I support its amendment; otherwise if it is desired to leave the matter wide open I iam ready to strike out the clause altogether.


Mr. OOPP:: I would draw the attention of the Acting Solicitor General to the amendment he made of subsection 8 of section 40 in regard to "the consent in writing of the person therein nominated, except where such person is absent from the province"

which has been changed to "electoral district." It seems to me that if you are not going to have consent where the person is absent from the electoral district, you might as well forego consent altogether. My hon. friend to the right (Mr. Devlin) may be over here in Ottawa on the day of nomination, and he would not have to consent to being a candidate because he would be out of his electoral district.


Hugh Guthrie: But that works out differently in other cases. A man standing for Ottawa may be at Port Arthur on nomination day; he is still in the province but out of his electoral district. The amendment is intended to cover a case of that kind.


Mr. COPP:: I would suggest that we have no consent at all. A man may be just over the line from his own constituency, but the section in its amended form does not provide for his consent.


Hugh Guthrie: Subsection 6 (c) provides for the electoral district from which the candidate may be absent, and we have amended the other section to make it correspond.


Mr. GOULD:: I would like to call the
attention of the hon. gentleman who made reference to the amount of deposit-


Jean-Joseph Denis: That is settled.


Oliver Robert Gould: A point I would like to
make is that such a proposal would put a premium upon money instead of upon brains. That is an absolutely wrong principle, and wherever we of the New Democracy encounter it we desire to. protest strongly against it. Incidentally, a remark was made as to individuals who are unsuccessful being classed as incompetent.
Possibly we might apply that standard to ourselves and find that some of us although elected were very incompetent. The difference between two- hundred and three hundred dollars may be the difference between success and failure, but it should not necessarily disqualify a candidate. Particularly am I pleased at this time to make reference to my opponent at the election in Assiniboia; not by any means is he a gentleman whom I consider incompetent, I take this opportunity to record my disapproval of the sentiment expressed.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Was he serious?


Mr. BEST:: Half the candidates who lost their deposits in the last election should not have run. If they had not contested those elections thousands and thousands of dollars would have been saved to the people of Canada. If the deposit had been raised to five hundred dollars many of those gentlemen might not have run. As the hon. gentleman from Assiniboia stated that brains counted and not money, I must say that it seems to me it is money and not brains that is going to count in some of the western provinces, for they have already $45,000 subscribed for election funds according to the latest newspaper reports. I think it is only right that the deposit should be fixed at five hundred dollars so that elections will not be forced on the people and the Government where they are not needed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think that would be a move in the wrong direction. If the present law fixes the deposit at two hundred dollars it would be a mistake to increase the amount. I for one would be inclined to keep the amount comparatively low.


Oliver Robert Gould: I may say to my hon. friend from Dufferin that possibly we might be able to dig up that five hundred dollars if it were demanded, even if we have a campaign fund. Further than that, I would remind him that we are not afraid to let the country know how and where we are getting our campaign fund, which has not been the rule in Canada- in regard to campaign funds of the past.


Samuel Francis Glass: Is the minister of opinion that the delay of returning officers in the past to return deposits to candidates was sufficient to justify this change? Supporting my friend from Edmonton (Mr. Mackie), under this Act the deposit by the candidate is sent by registered letter to the Auditor General. In all my experience I

do not know of any failure on the part of a returning officer to'promptly return deposits after results of the polls have been declared. There may be a reason for the change, but I submit that under the old arrangement it is much more convenient, and the return of the money was much more expeditious than is likely to be the case if the money is deposited with the Auditor General. Any one who has had experience of getting an account adjusted by the Auditor General's Department knows that he must consider himself exceedingly lucky to get it settled within twelve months and sometimes within two years.


Hugh Guthrie: There is no necessity for any delay in a case of this kind. The Auditor General has no accounts to adjust or investigate, he has simply to return the deposits.
Mr. SEXSM1TH: Would the minister so amend the clause that the Auditor General may be required to return the deposits within a certain time after the election results are declared?


Hugh Guthrie: I think he will return them in due time.


Jean-Joseph Denis: Section 30 provides that any votes given at an election for any other candidate than those nominated in the manner provided by this Act shall be null and void. I fail to see how it is possible for an elector to give his vote to any other person than a candidate, because only the names of the candidates appear on the ballot.


Hugh Guthrie: I have seen the names of candidates written on ballots.


Jean-Joseph Denis: Other than those appearing on the ballot?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, I have seen them written on.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 42-postponement of nomination day upon unforseen event or death of candidate:
Jean-Joseph Denis: In the case of the death of a candidate why should not the Chief Electoral Officer fix another day for nomination upon the report made to him by the returning officer? Is the matter not serious enough to be left to the Chief Electoral Officer?


Hugh Guthrie: The returning officer is on the ground; he knows the situation, and he makes a special report to the Chief Elec-

toral Officer. If the returning officer is inclined to do wrong, or the time is too short, or he is not able to give notice as laid down in this section, his attention will at once be directed to the matter by the Chief Electoral Officer, who will be an expert on elections. Last autumn a candidate in ' North Ontario died after being nominated and before the close of the polls. We had no Chief Electoral Officer at that time, but we had a Dominion Returning Officer. The local returning officer made all arrangements, fixed a new day for nomination, got out a new proclamation, and the election went on in due course.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 43-withdrawal of condidates:
Mr. MICHAUD:: I understand that a
candidate who withdraws between nomination and polling day loses his deposit.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


Jean-Joseph Denis: Is the word "publishes"
in subsection 3 compresensive enough? I would suggest that the clause read "publishes or otherwise makes public


Hugh Guthrie: In English the meaning of the word "publish" is "to make public ",


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 45-further duty of returning officer:
Hugh Guthrie: There is a clerical error in line 33; the words "and enumerators" should be struck out. There are no enumerators under this Act.


Mr. ROSS:: I should think that more
than two days before polling day should be allowed within which the returning officer shall furnish lists of deputy returning officers and enumerators.


Hugh Guthrie: That is the old rule.
Under the old system you had the right to inspect the list two days before election; now you are furnished with a list. All registrars are to be selected out of the polling subdivisions.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister
says that there are no enumerators under this Act. Do not the registrars perform the service which was performed by the enumerators under previous legislation?


Hugh Guthrie: The registrars do the
work formerly carried out by enumerators. Throughout the Bill the technical term used is " registrar


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the registrar is to perform the same duties as those performed by the enumerators under previous legislation, I would rather retain the name " enumerator," objectionable as it is. The word " registrar " connotes permanency and dignity which do not attach to the office of an enumerator. I think right through the Bill it would be much better to use the word " enumerator " than the word " registrar ".


Hugh Guthrie: The trouble is that the
word " enumerator" is not dignified enough. " Registrar " is a dignified term, and we want a dignified official. He is not neces-arily a man who goes around the country counting votes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He goes
around making up lists.


Hugh Guthrie: He does not necessarily do that. In the country districts, he accepts the provincial list, if it is not more than a year old.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is not
the case under the measure as it is framed now.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, if the provincial
list is not more than a year old, he is bound to accept it. Then he adds to or takes from it.


William Stevens Fielding: That is not accepting
it.


Hugh Guthrie: He accepts it as a basis. The language of the Bill is that the provincial list shall be the list with the right to add to it.


James Hamilton Ross: I still think a longer period
than two days should be allowed for a list cf those who are to act as deputy returning officers, etc., to be furnished to the candidate. If an improper man is appointed, I suppose the person to appeal to would be the chief electoral officer and that could not be done inside of two days. Is there any objection to extending the period to four days?


Hugh Guthrie: The only objection is
that sometimes those officials are not appointed four days before polling day.


James Hamilton Ross: They should be.


Hugh Guthrie: Sometimes a man backs out or dies. In some outlying districts, it is very difficult to get such men at all. In section 114 of the old Act, the time was two days.


Jean-Joseph Denis: Two days for deputy returning officers, but what about the registrars who are nominated weeks before?


Hugh Guthrie: The candidates will have knowledge of them twenty-nine days before this. They have to post notices, put up their names and make up lists.


Jean-Joseph Denis: Subclause 2 reads:
All ballots shall be of the same description and as nearly alike as possible.
Why should they not be alike? I would have this subclause read:
All ballots shall be of the same description and alike.


Hugh Guthrie: That would not make
sense. " Of the same description " does not mean " alike."


Jean-Joseph Denis: Then, let us strike out the words " of the same description."


Hugh Guthrie: Everybody knows that
the meaning of that is that they shall be of the same general description and as nearly alike as it is possible to make them.


Jean-Joseph Denis: Different kinds of paper
and of printing might be used.


Hugh Guthrie: That is provides for because the chief electoral officer provides the paper, and the weight of paper and so on is dealt with in subsequent clauses.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 49-ballot boxes.
Jean-Joseph Denis: This clause appears to be
a little vague. It begins by saying:
The chief electoral officer may cause to be made
* such ballot boxes.
He may not, but I suppose it is compulsory, he really has to do it.


Hugh Guthrie: Read the rest of the
clause.


Jean-Joseph Denis: He may cause ballot boxes to be made if they do not already exist. But who is going to inform the chief electoral officer whether ballot boxes should be provided or not?


Hugh Guthrie: Part of his duty is to
get that information.


Henry Arthur Mackie: Under this clause, has the general electoral officer power to give instructions to have ballot boxes made in any other district than the one in which he resides himself? At the last Federal election, notwithstanding the fact that I

made numerous requests for bal-5 p.m. lot boxes to be sent out, it was impossible to get boxes in time to send them to the remotest part of my constituency and the returning officer undertook to take such boxes as he found in the post office basement and to put the ballots into those boxes. There should be some provision by which men residing in the remotest parts of the country should get ballot boxes in time.
On secttion 51-Forgery or destruction of ballots.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is this the same as in the old Act?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, except subsection "L." The former Act, section 255, provided disqualification, -which is removed by the draftsman of this Bill. He makes any offence specified in this section an illegal practice punishable on summary conviction as in the Act provided. Under the former Act the offender was disqualified as well as subject to penalty.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Should we not continue that provision?


Hugh Guthrie: I really cannot give an explanation for its discontinuance. I think that the former section was passed in 1908 after some irregularities had taken place in the riding of West or East Hastings, and there was considerable excitement in the House at the time. I remember the present hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Porter) produced one of the fradulent ballot boxes in Parliament, and there was a debate on the subject, as a result of which the clause was made very drastic, including not only disqualification for a term of years, but imprisonment for five or ten years. I think probably the draftsman in enumerating these offences came to the conclusion that they were illegal practices punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both. The former section was certainly more severe than the present one, and I really do not know that there is any reason why it should be changed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The offences enumerated in this section are serious, and it would seem desirable to make the law as strict as possible. I think the old section is preferable to the one here. There is a great temptation on the part of an officer who wishes to be corrupt to take advantage of his position, and the more difficult and hazardous any attempt at illegality can be made, the better it will be for the sanctity of the ballot.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not see any reason why the old section should not replace subsection "L," and I therefore move that this subsection be struck out, and the following paragraph inserted in lieu thereof, making the term of disqualification seven years instead of eight: '
(1) Attempts to commit any offence specified in this section shall be disqualified from acting at any election for a term of seven years thereafter and guilty of an indictable offence, and liable, if he is a returning officer, election clerk, deputy returning officer, poll clerk or other officer engaged in the election, to imprisonment without the alternative of a fine for a term not exceeding five years and not less than one year, with or without hard labour, and if he is any other person, with imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years and not less than one year, with or without hard labour.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 52-Who may be present at polling station.
James Hamilton Ross: I think there is something in the Act somewhere which restricts the agent to an unreasonable extent.


Hugh Guthrie: That is in regard to the oath of secrefcy?


James Hamilton Ross: Yes


Hugh Guthrie: That comes later on; there is no change in this section. ,
On section 53-voting on certificate; certain officers and agents may vote at polling stations where employed:


Hugh Guthrie: I move to amend subsesetion 1 of section 53 by substituting the word "revising" for the word "receiving" where it appears at the end of the twenty-fifth line.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Hugh Guthrie: I think that in other
respects the section now conforms to sections 59, 144 and 60 of the former law, with the exception that the special provisions ' in the former law in regard to the Yukon have been omitted here.
Mr. PETER MeGIBBON:	Would the
Acting Solicitor General have any objection to increasing the number of agents from 2 to 3?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not just see why.
Mr. PETER MeGIBBON: As a matter of practice it is a very convenient thing, and I think it is a very just thing.


Hugh Guthrie: My only experience has been that two is adequate. I think it is better to limit the number. It must be

remembered that these men vote on certificates and as a rule do not vote in their own polling subdivisions. It gives less difficulty in tracing out certificates if we limit the number. If any practical good were to be accomplished by increasing the number I would not have any serious objection, but I do not see any advantage in doing so.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: We have lots of trouble with two.


James Hamilton Ross: I think this clause should stand, because when you get through with the Bill you may not have any registrars.


Hugh Guthrie: If we do not we will revise the whole thing.


Jean-Joseph Denis: Under the old Act the returning officer alone could grant these certificates. Now the returning officer, together with the registrar, can grant certificates. Consequently, each man who is entitled to a certificate may make his application either to the returning officer or to the registrar. Moreover, it is provided that two certificates will be given in each poll. Supposing that the registrar gives two certificates and the returning officer gives two; that will be four. There is no provision in the law to prevent the returning officer and the registrar from acting separately. It says nowhere that when the registrar gives two certificates he will have to make a report to the returning officer, and vice versa. With these two officers acting independently and each granting two certificates it will make four certificates for a polling subdivision. I think these certificates should be controlled absolutely during and after the election and that all parties interested should be able to control the number of certificates given, to whom they are given and by whom they are given. As the matter now stands there is no provision for the form or shape in which the certificate shall be given. I submit that the certificates should be controlled, and in order that they may be controlled I would add to the Act a form which would come immediately after Form T, and which would be Form T-l, giving the exact wording of the certificate to be issued, which form does not exist at the present time. Then I would have these certificates numbered with a stub. The stub also would be numbered the same as the ballots in order to keep track of them. In the third instance, as with the ballots, I would have the certificates bound or stitched in books containing twenty-five, fifty or one hundred. In the fourth instance the returning officer and the 71
registrar should be provided with these certificates by the chief electoral officer just as other papers are to be furnished by him. Then I would have appear on the stub the name of the elector, the poll where he is entitled to vote, the poll where he is allowed to vote according to the certificate and the capacity in which he is allowed to vote at the poll-either as deputy returning officer, agent, clerk or otherwise. Then I would have these stubs open to the examination of the candidates before and until three days after the election; and finally I would have these stubs, with the other papers, returned to the chief electoral officer. To summarize I would take complete control of these certificates. I do not see what objection there can be to the proposition. If there are any I am ready to hear them.


Hugh Guthrie: I have never heard of any difficulty arising under the plan set out in the Act. It is certainly less involved than the one proposed by my hon. friend although the latter may be very good. I have never heard of any irregularity or difficulty taking place in regard to these certificates but other hon. gentlemen may have.


John Best: I submit that what my hon. friend (Mr. Denis) proposes would be utterly impossible. How could a returning officer get around to every polling sub-division in the county say in half a day, with all these certificates.


Jean-Joseph Denis: I do not think my hon. friend is seized of the point. The returning officer is in possession of the certificates. He is the official who gives the certificates just like a man who has a book of cheques and issues cheques and keeps the stubs.


Hugh Guthrie: Not under this.


Jean-Joseph Denis: Yes.


Hugh Guthrie: No, it is the revising officer who would be the judge in the city districts and the registrar in the country districts.


Jean-Joseph Denis: Well that is a slip, I meant the revising officer or the registrar.


John Best: If the hon. gentleman meant the revising officer even in case it would be impossible for him to get around in the limited time afforded.


Jean-Joseph Denis: The revising officer has the control of these certificates. What difference does it make to require him to have stubs and to keep the names of all the persons he issued these certificates to, and



make a return of the stubs in order that they may be controlled? It would not be any more difficult for him to have the stubs and the certificates numbered than it would be in case of a person issuing cheques. The revising officer will have a book say containing a hundred blank certificates. He will issue these certificates to whoever they belong. He will keep track of them and then after the election is over it can be proven from these stubs to whom the certificates were given. We have no possible means, except through the revising officer's records of ascertaining during, or after the election, what number of certificates was given or to whom they were given. Of course during a controverted election, or in the case of proceedings be-foref a court of justice it would be possible to have all the papers brought and thus find out to whom the certificates were granted; but such is not the object of the law. The object aimed is to make the machinery of the law intelligible to everybody. As it is now it is not and never will be, and no candidate will ever know how many certificates have been given.


Hugh Guthrie: Oh yes.


Jean-Joseph Denis: How will he know?


Hugh Guthrie: Let me point out that in the first place there cannot be more than two for any one poll. That is definite. In the second place the revising officer is^ to sign every such certificate and mention thereon the date of its issue. It is required that:
__shall consecutively number every such certificate in the order of Its issue.
That meets the third point my hon. friend has raised. Then the officer:
__shall not issue any such certificate in blank.
Now take the next subsection (3). It declares :
Every such certificate shall contain in writing the name of the person to whom it is issued, and shall state that such person is a qualified elector, the polling division in which he is entitled to vote, and, if he is a deputy returning officer, agent or poll clerk, the polling station for which he is appointed.
Now the next qualification:
No such certificate shall entitle any such deputy returning officer, poll clerk Or agent to vote at such polling station unless he has been actually engaged as such thereat during the day of polling.
That is to identify. Now take the last subsection (7) which deals with the record in every case of a vote polled under the authority of this section:

The poll clerk shall enter in the poll book, opposite the voter's name, in the column for remarks, a memorandum stating that the voter voted under certificate, giving the number of such certificate, and stating the particular office or position which the voter is filling at the polling station.
I submit that record is rather complete.


James Hamilton Ross: Under the old Act I think these officials had to take the oath as a matter of course. Subsection 6 of section 53 of this Bill says:
.-shall, if required, before voting, take the oath-


Hugh Guthrie: The old section required these officials to take the oath in form V. Subsection (6) requires the oath in Form U to be taken.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: A moment ago I said that the clause as drafted here was originally limited to Saskatchewan and Alberta. It was taken I think from the old section, 59.


Hugh Guthrie: I have got the old section here. It is as follows:
Any deputy returning officer, candidate, agent or poll clerk who belongs to a polling division other than the one at which he is employed on the polling day shall be permitted to vote at the polling station where he is so employed, provided he produces a certificate from the enumerator of the polling division to which he belongs that he is a qualified voter in such polling division, which certificate such enumerator shall give gratis to any qualified elector who is so stationed outside of his polling division.
2.	Except in the Yukon Territory, in issuing such certificates, every enumerator-
(a)	shall not issue more than three certificates for use in any one polling division to the agents of any candidate;
(b)	shall mention on such certificate the date of issue and sign such certificate;
(c)	shall number consecutively in the order of issue any such certificate; and,
(d)	shall not issue in blank any such certificate.
3.	Each such certificate, except in the Yukon Territory, shall contain in writing the name of the person to whom it is issued, and shall state that such person is a qualified elector, the polling division in which he is entitled to vote, and, if he is a deputy returning officer, agent or poll clerk, the polling station for which he is appointed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That' is section 144.


Hugh Guthrie: That is section 59. I read section 144 some time ago.


John Howard Sinclair: Would it not be better that the returning officer should issue these certificates instead of the registrar? The registrar has completed his work. The certificates are generally asked for perhaps one or two days before the election, and at

that time all the papers are in the hands of the returning officers. These deputies that are asking for transfers to different sections are the subordinates of the returning officers, and it strikes me that instead of making the registrar the party for delivering these certificates, it would be much better to continue the old practice. What does my hon. friend say to that?


Hugh Guthrie: I like the old system best too, but it is only when the certificates are asked for within the last day or two that my hon. friend's suggestion would he applicable, because the revised lists do not get to the hands of the returning officers until the last few days.. Supposing a week before polling day in a constituency of long distances one wanted to get a certificate to enable a man to vote at a distant poll as one s agent, I do not think one could get it from the returning officer. The list in a city, town or village would be in the hands of the revising officer who would be a judge, and in the country in the hands of the registrar, who would keep it until polling day and would attend the poll.


John Howard Sinclair: The returning officer has the list two or three days before the polling day?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


John Howard Sinclair: Why not insert his name in the section as well so that he can issue certificates if necessary?


Hugh Guthrie: The idea was to keep it within bounds. We cut it down to two. If we are going to allow three officers, I think it will have a tendency to mix things up. I have no objection if-the committee want it that way, but I think it is a wrong principle to encourage.


John Howard Sinclair: Ii think it will be found in actual practice that in many cases a man will want a transfer within two days of the election. The registrar and the other officers may not be at the place, but the returning officer is the head, and he is the man who then has possession of the list and will make the transfer. Therefore I think that in addition to the registrar and the revising officer the returning officer should be added to this clause.


Hugh Guthrie: I am afraid it will only result in conflict; we shall have duplicate certificates, and so on. However, if the opinion of the committee is in favour of spreading this out, I do not object.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Why not let this section stand until we take up the duties of registrars?


Hugh Guthrie: All right.
Section stands.
On section 54-Counting of ballots before opening of poll-Candidate may act as his own agent-Provisions requiring presence of agents.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is a slight change there from the former law. The Bill as drafted states that the agents and electors must be present at least fifteen minutes before the hour fixed for the opening of the poll. I do not think that limitation is in the old statute.


Hugh Guthrie: The old section was 141, and it reads as follows:
Agents and electors entitled to be present in the room of the polling station during polling hours shall be entitled to have the ballot papers intended for use thereat carefully counted in 'heir presence before the opening of the poll, and to inspect such ballot papers, and all other papers, forms and documents relating to the poll, provided such agents or electors are in attendance at least fifteen minutes before the hour fixed for opening the poll.
Former section 140 starts then with subsection 2 and it continues down to line 31., We merely transpose them. Subsection 3 is old section 4. I do not think there is any change; there may be in a word or two, but none in principle.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 55-When polls shall be held etc.
Hugh Guthrie: Might I first point out a clerical error to give sense to the first subsection? After the word "but" in line 44 of subsection 1 the following words should be inserted "at an election other' than a general election." I move that this amendment be incorporated in the section.


Edmond Proulx: Why make a difference in the period that elapses between nomination and voting? Why not make it uniform all through?


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: This changes the practice of the past of having the election held a week after nomination; the time is now two weeks. Is that the effect of this provision?


Hugh Guthrie: In bye-elections there
will be a week between nomination and polling day; in general elections, fourteen days.

Mr. COCKiSHUTT: Subsection 4 provides that a "suitable black lead pencil" shall be kept properly sharpened throughout the hours of polling. Having been engaged in a recount soime years ago I know that a great deal of trouble arose over the construction that was placed on these few words. Not a few merchants marked their ballots-legally, as they thought-with a fountain pen, and on that account their ballots were thrown aside. Others produced from their own pockets pencils that were said to be not quite black, and used them in marking their ballots. This is to be an enfranchising, not a disfranchising Act, and where the evident intention of the voter is to vote for a certain candidate, an obstruction of that kind should not be put in the way. I would like the minister to consider that.


Mr.   GTJTHBIE@: I will have to consider
that. This is a clause in connection with which there appears to be some contention; therefore I move that its consideration be postponed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and consideration of section 55 postponed.
On section 58-oath by elector:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: One change
in this provision is rather significant: it is the insertion of the word "knowingly" before the word "mentions" in subsection 3.
I see no reason why the word knowingly should be inserted there.
Mr. GUTHRIE.:	I have no objection to
taking it out. I move that the word "knowingly" be struck from line 33, page 40.
Amendment agree to.


Mr. J. M. DOUGLAS:: (Section 1 states that " any elector present" may take exception to a voter casting his ballot and may require him to be sworn, but section 56 provides that not more than one voter for each compartment shall at any time enter the room where the poll is held. How would it be possible for "any other elector" to be in the polling booth?


Hugh Guthrie: If a candidate has no
agent, any elector is entitled to go there and represent him, though that elector would not have all the powers of an agent. When the agent comes, that elector may no longer represent the candidate.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Subclause 2 reads:
No voter who has refused to take any oath or affirmation or to answer any questions, or produce any evidence.
[Mi. Guthrie.I
What evidence would he be required to produce?


Hugh Guthrie: The form of oath in this measure is a little different from the ordinary form of oath; it is by means of a questionnaire, and I suppose it is to meet that particular form of oath that a new clause, subclause 2, was drafted.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The clause goes on to say
that no such voter shall be admitted to vote or be again admitted to the polling place. It might be necessary for him to go outside to get the evidence required, and in that case he ought to be readmitted.


Hugh Guthrie: The only evidence that
he could be asked to produce would be the oaths " Y " and " Z."


Mr. HALBERT:: If an agent asks that
a voter coming to. vote be sworn and the deputy returning officer refuses to swear that voter, what happens?


Hugh Guthrie: The deputy returning
officer commits an illegal act under section 27 of the Act and renders himself liable to a fine of ?500 or one year's imprisonment, or both.	-


Robert Henry Halbert: Nothing could be done as regards the voter?


Hugh Guthrie: Nothing that I know
of.


John Albert Sexsmith: Is it absolutely illegal
to allow more than one person in the room where the polling is going on? In one municipality that I have in mind the town hall, which is a large room, is used for the purpose. A few curtains aTe put across the centre of the room in order to make a partition and the voting is done regularly enough. There is only one polling booth behind the curtain, but there may be fifty people in the same room. Would that be illegal ?


Hugh Guthrie: We are not considering
that clause, but the clause says: " not more than one voter for each compartment." That means a polling compartment.
Mr. SEXSMITH1:	There is no real division any more than a temporary division is put up in the way that I have mentioned. If polling is done in a sehoolhouse, you could not have a proper division.


Hugh Guthrie: There has been no
change in this for the last twenty years. Section agreed to.
At six o'clock the House resumed, and then took recess.

After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 51, respecting the Dominion Fire Insurance Company.-Mr. Mowat.
Bill No. 52; to incorporate the Western Canadian Union Corporation ol the Seventh-day Adventists.-Mr. Mackie (Edmonton).

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Mr. H. M. Mowat (Park-dale) the House went into committee to consider Bill No. 18 to incorporate Canada Security Assurance Company.
On section 8-acquisition of property of Alberta company.
Mr. CAHILL:: Will the member in
charge of "the Bill explain this section?


Mr. MOWAT:: The company own all the capital stock of the Canada Security Assurance Company-a corporation of the same name-incorporated under the statutes of A'lberta, and they desire to acquire the whole capital stock of the Alberta company and to do business under the powers given by this Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported and read a third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House again in committee on Bill No. 12, respecting the election of members of the House of Commons and the Electoral Franchise, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 59-corrections in list and entries in poll book:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is this the
same as in the old Act?


Hugh Guthrie: There is a slight change in the language, and Prince Edward Island is left out.
On section 60-secrecy during poll:


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is a consolidation of the old section?


Hugh Guthrie: A consolidation.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 61-ballot not to be displayed:
Hugh Guthrie: The Parliamentary
Counsel has suggested an amendment to this section which I think is proper. I beg to move:
That clause 61 be amended by inserting after the word "when" in the first line of said -clause the words "unable to read or."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is nothing in this other than what is in the old Act?


Hugh Guthrie: That is all.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
On section 62-manner of voting:
Hugh Guthrie: There is an amendment to subsection 2. I move:
That clause 6-2 be amended by inserting after the word "is" in line 23, page 42 of the Bill the words "unable to read or."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: The rest of the section, I think, is a consolidation of the old Act except that there is a new provision here. I would like to read it and ask the minister if he has any comment to make. y
Provided that where the deputy returning officer has inadvertently omitted to remove the counterfoil from the ballot paper before placing such ballot paper in the ballot box, he may, exercising care however that the number on such counterfoil be not seen by any person present and without himself examining such number, remove and destroy such counterfoil at the counting of the ballots; and the judge who may conduct any recount proceedings shall have the like power, inadvertence on the part of the deputy returning officer being, for the purposes of the recount, presumed. The ballots, if otherwise in proper form, shall be counted as if the counterfoil had been at the proper time removed therefrom.
What is the significance of that proviso?


Hugh Guthrie: The proviso is drawn by Mr. W. F. O'Connor, K.C., who had a good deal to do with the drafting of the Bill, In the history of election matters it has been found in quite a number of instances, that through inadvertence, the returning officer on receiving the ballot from the voter will place it in the ballot box without removing the counterfoil. When a recount takes place the question arises whether this is or is not a spoiled ballot. It would be wrong to deprive a man of his vote through the inadvertence of the returning officer, and if the returning officer should remove the counterfoil without exposing the ballot, it would be considered a good ballot. A like consideration would apply before a judge engaged in the making of a recount. I have known of cases in recounts where ballots are found with the counterfoil attached. I remember that on one occasion a judge held in one place that those ballots were good

votes, whilst another judge in the next county held that they were not good votes. It is to remove any doubt upon that question, in order that a man who has honestly voted shall not be deprived of his vote from any inadvertence on the part of the returning officer.


Frank S. Cahill: Is paragraph (b), subsection (5), the same as it was in the old Act?


Hugh Guthrie: It is the same except
as to the number of the form; the forms have been re-arranged. In the old Act the form was Z. In this Bill it is BB. Otherwise it is the same.


Albert James Smith Copp: That only applies to voters
in rural sections.


Hugh Guthrie: I think this has general application. (Reading):
if a person representing himself to he a particular elector applies for a ballot paper after another person has voted as such person, he shall be entitled to receive a ballot paper after taking the oath.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Then paragraph (a).


Hugh Guthrie: (a)	in form AA, if his name is on the list of voters;
(b)	in form BB, if his name is not on the list of voters; and,
(c)	otherwise establishing his identity to the satisfaction of the deputy returning officer.


Albert James Smith Copp: I understood from this (Bill
that the list in urban centres was completed and that persons could not vote unless their names were on the list.


Hugh Guthrie: In urban centres the
list is completed when the judge finally revises it, or the revising officer. In rural polling divisions it is not so.


Albert James Smith Copp: This would only apply to
rural polling divisions?


Hugh Guthrie: In form AA if the voter's name is on the list of voters.


Albert James Smith Copp: Very well then, form BB.


Hugh Guthrie: That could only apply
to a man whose name is not on the voters' list.


John Albert Sexsmith: Do I understand that
a man may vote in rural subdivisions even if his name is not on the list?


Hugh Guthrie: The ballot goes into the box just the same.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We have not reached the section dealing with that.


Hugh Guthrie: No. It is section 63, we will come to it.


Jean-Joseph Denis: From the reading of subsection (6) of this clause together with subsection (1) of section 60, paragraph (c), one might understand that the ballot proper is going to be numbered. Is that the purpose of the Act?


Hugh Guthrie: The counterfoil is numbered, not the ballot paper. The ballot paper itself is stamped and initialled. It is the duty of the deputy returning officer to tear that counterfoil off. Then it is destroyed.


Jean-Joseph Denis: It is not to be numbered but it reads as if it were to be numbered. Although wre have passed section 60 let us read these two sections together. Let us take paragraph (c) of section 60 which reads as follows:
-at the counting of the votes attempt to ascertain the number on the back of any ballot paper.
How can there be a number on the back of a ballot paper?


Hugh Guthrie: Unless it was inadvertently put in by the deputy returning officer.


Jean-Joseph Denis: I would suggest to the minister that the paragraph should be made clearer. As it reads now, if a man were not perfectly well aware that the ballot should not bear a number on its back, the wording might make one believe that it should be numbered.


Hugh Guthrie: There is a number in the case where a man goes to the poll and finds somebody else has voted in his name. There is a number put on and that is entered in the poll book. That is provided .for in the clause under consideration, clause 62.


Jean-Joseph Denis: In that ease the man's vote is not . a secret any longer.


Hugh Guthrie: It is pretty secret,


Jean-Joseph Denis: No, it is not secret. Suppose Jack Smith enters the polling place and you give him ia ballot that is numbered 100. The ballot is put in the box and afterwards the box is opened and it is found that the number 100 is on the ballot of Jack Smith; then it is no longer secret.


Hugh Guthrie: Would you deprive that man of his vote or would you identify the vote? I do not want to deprive that man of his vote. If I go to the polling place and find some one has voted in my name I do not want to be deprived of my vote.

At the same time I take the oath and I get a ballot. Now there is <a provision that the ballot I get has a number on the back of it. That is for the purpose of identity. Every precaution is taken with regard to .secrecy and everybody is sworn in connection with it.
(Mr. ROSS: Why is it necessary to identify that man after he has been sworn once?


Hugh Guthrie: It may subsequently be
a question whether I have a right to vote or the other man. I might not be known at the polls.


James Hamilton Ross: I cannot see any object in
it.	t


Hugh Guthrie: My vote may be questioned. How are you going to find the ballot unless there is a number on it? I come up and say: I am John Smith. The deputy returning officer tells me that John Smith has already voted. I deny that the right John Smith has voted, and I take the oath. Thus there are two ballots for John Smith. The numbered ballot identifies me in case of a recount. It may be that a man has fraudulently voted.


William Stevens Fielding: In that case is there
any question of the bona fide character of -the vote? And if there is none why identity it?	.


Hugh Guthrie: It may be honest and
bona fide. I might be the proper one to poll the vote, or I might not be; I might be the fraudulent person.


William Stevens Fielding: That is to be established at a recount? ,


Hugh Guthrie: In case a recount became necessary. It is a thing that would not happen very often, but I think there should be some way of checking it up.


William Stevens Fielding: If either man has not
been identified you have to identity the man who had the honest vote.


Hugh Guthrie: Well identify one or
the other.


Mr. CALDWELL:: The first man to vote
might not be the fraudulent voter.


Hugh Guthrie: To my mind this is a
safeguard but I am not going to press the point.
. Mr. ARTHURS: It has always been the rule.


Hugh Guthrie: It was copied from the
old law. If any one objects to the provision, let it go.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: In case a fraudulent
vote the identity would be discovered by the number on the back of the ballot?


Hugh Guthrie: The judge would identify the ballot voted by John Smith.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Would the ballot be
thrown out?


Hugh Guthrie: If it were proven that
John Smith voted fraudulently and was not the actual John Smith who had a right to vote the ballot would certainly be thrown out. If it was proven that the right man had voted on the numbered ballot it would be counted.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Suppose the wrong
man voted first what would be done about it?


Hugh Guthrie: I cannot help you there. We cannot stop up every gap for fraud.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Section 63 had better stand.


Hugh Guthrie: I move that section
63 stand.,
Motion agreed to: section stands.
On section 64-peace and good order at elections.


Hugh Guthrie: There is an error in subsection 2 at line 13. The words "Chief Electoral" should be struck out, and the word "Returning" inserted. I move that amendment.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Subsection 2 of this section is entirely new, is it not? Is there any special reason for this addition?


Hugh Guthrie: It is a new clause, and I think it is a very useful one. With the amendment I propose it would read:
Constab'es sha'.l be appointed to act at polling stations only in cases where the returning officer fears that otherwise disorder will result thereat. In cities and towns returning officers may provide, and locate during polling day at convenient places, one or more posses of three or more constables each, as may be authorized by the Returning Officer, with means of information and of quick conveyance to any place where the services of such posses may be required.
This is just an extra safeguard. If anyone fears a riot or an unfair election there is power to take preventive measures.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister now suggests to make the clause read:
In cities and towns returning officers may provide and locate during polling day at convenient places, one or more posses of three or

more constables each, as may be authorize*} by the Returning Officer.
I think the change makes the clause rather different from what he intended.


Hugh Guthrie: The Returning Officer is on the spot, he has general control of the whole constituency, and he may know of conditions which lead him to fear a riot or other disturbance; the Chief Electoral Officer is here in Ottawa. I think the discretion should be invested in some one on the spot.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But the clause as now amended reads that in cities and towns returning officers may provide and locate one or more posses as may be authorized by the returning officer.


Hugh Guthrie: Oh yes. I should have moved, Mr. Chairman, that the words "as may be authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer" be stricken out.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Hugh Guthrie: Then I think to make the language of this section conform with that of many other sections we should add the words "and incorporated villages." In other sections wherever the phrase occurs it is in the form of "cities, towns and incorporated villages." I would therefore move that the words "and incorporated villages" be inserted after the word "towns" in line ten, and that the word "and" before "towns" be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. ARTHURS:: In connection with subsection 2 I see a decided objection to the language of the first sentence:
Constables shall be appointed to act at polling stations only in cases where the returning officer fears that otherwise disorder will result thereat.
In many constituencies, particularly in the outlying districts, the returning officer is many males away from the polling subdivision, and it would be absolutely impossible for him to have any personal knowledge of the situation. The deputy returning officer would be the man with knowledge of local conditions. I suggest that the word "deputy" be inserted before "returning officer."


James Hamilton Ross: Is this taken from the English Act?


Hugh Guthrie: We give every poll clerk the authority of a constable, and every deputy returning officer has the authority of a justice of the peace. Then by way of 
extra precaution the returning officer is empowered to provide a posse.


James Arthurs: We have always had that authority vested in the poll dlerk and the deputy returning officer, but we have also always had a constable at these polls. Take any part of Northern Ontario or Western Canada, the returning officer does not know the local conditions at all, and a difficult situation may arise very suddenly.


Hugh Guthrie: There is another safeguard provided. Any candidate or his agent, or any two electors, may require any returning officer or deputy returning officer to swearvin such special constables as he deems^ necessary. I think there is ample provision for appointing constables.


John Albert Sexsmith: Is it intended that a constable shall be appointed at everv polling station?


Hugh Guthrie: No, not necessarily.


Mr. LEGER:: I would like to have some information in reference to subsection 5, which reads:
Upon receiving the information the deputyreturning officer may, on the polling day, but not afterwards, issue his warrant in form FF or GG, as the case may be, for the arrest of the person charged, in order that he may be brought before the magistrate,-
And so on. Surely the voting at the polls should not be held up in order that the deputy returning officer may be enabled to issue his warrant.


Hugh Guthrie: This also is merely an extra precaution. If a man wants to go to another magistrate there is nothing to prevent his doing so. But in case another magistrate is not available and quick action is necessary, authority is given to the deputy to issue at once a warrant for the arrest of the person charged. It would not take more than a moment to write out a warrant for a, man's arrest. In any case, if there is a desire not to interrupt the deputy returning officer any one can take the ordinary process of law and go before another magistrate. The object of this is to have action taken on the spot so that the offender may not vote and get away.


Auguste Théophile Léger: Deputy returning officers
are not all lawyers; they may want to take time to get the warrant in shape. The polling might be delayed half an hour, and that would be most undesirable.


Hugh Guthrie: Does the minister think that that power should be taken away? .


Mr. MORPHY:: Subsection 3 reads:
If a person Is charged at a polling station with having committed the offence of personation.
An evil-minded person who enters the polling booth with the intention of impersonating another voter may be detected before he carries out his intention. Under this section there is no power to deal with such a case. It seems to me that the provision should cover also an attempt to commit the offence of personation; the result would be a tendency to prevent the evil-minded person from entering the booth at all.


Hugh Guthrie: I have no objection to
amending the section accordingly, if the committee is of that opinion. I move that section 64 be further amended by inserting in line 18, page 45, after the word " committed " the words "or attempted to commit", and by adding after the word "voted" in line 18, the words "or attempted to vote".


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Unless the minister can give some substantial reason why subsection 2 should remain in the Bill, it seems to me that it should be struck out. The effect of it is that in any incorporated village, town or city the returning officer may have groups of three men as special constables, posses of police, wandering about during the day of the election in the vicinity of polls. That would mean a considerable amount of government patronage, and it would open the door to corruption and to an element of terrorizing in some communities rather than the opposite. I think it would be much wiser to return to the old law, unless there is some substantial reason why we should introduce this police system at our elections.


Hugh Guthrie: I am not wedded to the proposal. If my hon. friend moves to strike it out, I agree.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I move to strike out subsection 2.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: -It is unfair to assume
that in case of disorder at a polling subdivision the constables would be at the beck and call only of the Government officials. They would be there, I should thipk, for the purpose of preserving order for all the people and to ensure a proper and fair election for everybody; and to strike out this provision would not tend to ensure the conduct of elections in the manner desired by every law-abiding citizen. As to the question of
patronage, I suppose that is a case of honi soit qui mal y pense.


Hugh Guthrie: Under another subsection there is power to appoint as many constables as necessary. This is only an extra precaution, a provision to afford a greater safeguard in the case of disturbance, but I cannot see that it very much improves the old law.


Mr. DUFF:: Every city, town and village have their own police forces which could be called upon in case of riot or disturbance. I do not see any necessity for subsection 2.


John Howard Sinclair: Surely subsection 8 gives ample power to the proper officers and affords necessary precautions for cases of that kind.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Hugh Guthrie: Re-numbering of the subsections follows as a matter of course.


Jean-Joseph Denis: In subsection 1, it is provided that when a person has been arrested during polling day, the order for his arrest will not hold good after the close of the poll. If a deputy returning officer wants to lodge a complaint against a person who has been arrested by him during the day, he should be given some time after the closing of the poll to prepare and lodge his complaint, but under this subsection the person arrested would be set free at six o'clock. Why not say that such order signed by the deputy returning officer shall hold good until nine or ten o'clock of the same night, in order to give the deputy returning "officer some time in which to lodge a complaint if he wants to do so? Until six o'clock the deputy returning officer is engaged and consequently is unable to prepare and lodge such a complaint.


Hugh Guthrie: This is a very old clause and I do not know that much would be gained by amending it. To keep a man, who may probably be innocent, locked up all day without sending him before a magistrate, would be dealing very harshly with him.


James Arthurs: Subsection 8 reads:
Every poll clerk shall have the authority of a constable for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act respecting summary proceedings in cases of personation.
Why should he not have that authority in every case and not merely in a case of personation?


Hugh Guthrie: This clause has stood the test of time and I do not see that much is to be gained by amending it.


James Arthurs: In ease of any trouble m a poll, should not the poll clerk have the authority of a constable?


Hugh Guthrie: There are always plenty of constables round a poll and I would not favour the amendment.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 65-strangers not to enter polling districts armed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Subsection 5 has a few additions of which I do not know just the significance. After the words " no spirituous or fermented liquors " there have been added the words " whether or not intoxicating." This addition looks as if it had been put in by the Minister of Health. The subsection states further:
-shall he sold or given at any hotel, tavern, shop or other place within the limits of any polling division, before, during or after the hours during which the poll is open on polling day.
The words " before " and " or after " have also been added. This is really prohibition legislation.


Hugh Guthrie: I think it is meant to allow two per cent and to exclude four per cent, whereas, in the opinion of a good many people, four per cent is not intoxicating.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is meant by " before or after " the hours of polling?


Hugh Guthrie: The old law always was that shops and taverns should be closed the whole of polling day; no liquor was allowed to be sold, and I suppose this was intended to carry out that idea.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The old law was that no liquor should be sold during the hours during which the poll was open on polling day. The words that have been added are " before or after ". That practically makes it impossible to sell these drinks at any time.


Hugh Guthrie: That was always the law.


James Hamilton Ross: When you change the time between nomination and polling day, why do you not change this to fourteen days instead of eight?


Mr. SHEARD:: As regards the phrase " whether or not intoxicating," I should like to have a definition of the term " intoxicating." I have never yet come across one which would stand the test of criticism.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Another objection to this clause is that it is so drastic that a man 
could not accept from his tvife in his own home after a hard day's work at the election, a small portion of stimulant that might prevent him from going into a serious state of collapse. This is going about as far as any legislation could go towards something that is not now prohibited by any law that is in existence. Under this subclause, a man could not, between five o'clock in the morning and twelve o'clock at night of polling day, accept off his own sideboard, at the hands of any person, whether a member of his family or not, a glass of wine which is intoxicating.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Not even to drown his sorrow.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I was not thinking of that; I was speaking more about the drastic nature of the clause as affecting the liberty of the subject. We ought to be rather chary about going in an Election Act further than is gone in
9 p.m. any other Act of which I know. There are many other drastic measures in force to-day and the public are complaining against them. It would be well if we had fewer restrictions and a little relaxation from the drastic effects of these public Acts. I think it would meet the approval of the best citizens if this subsection were struck out altogether. Let us not be abnormally drastic about measures that go to the root of the social customs of the people.


James Hamilton Ross: If it was thought advisable
to increase the time between nomination day and polling day to fourteen days, would it not be logical to increase the time during which these restrictions shall apply from eight to fourteen days also?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not think there was any logic in the matter at all. The time fixed in this section was considered an adequate period during which to forbid the use of badges. Eight days is long enough, and in any event I do not think there is very much in the matter one way or another. In regard to the remarks of my hon. friend from North Perth (Mr. Morphy) concerning subsection 5, I would suggest that the words " whether or not intoxicating " be struck out, and the words " public place" be substituted for the words " or other place". I do not. think we should go the length of going into a man's house.


Joseph Archambault: The subsection
says that no liquor shall be sold during or after the hours during which the poll is open on polling day. The day starts at

midnight preceding. The prohibition should start with the commencement of the polling day.


Hugh Guthrie: That was always the
law; for the whole twenty-four hours of [DOT]election day the sale of liquor was prohibited.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is the
advantage of adding the words " whether or not intoxicating " or the words " before, during or after "? If the prohibition is to [DOT]apply during the whole of polling day these words are unnecessary; and if you retain the words " whether or not intoxicating," you would prohibit the use of ginger beer.


Hugh Guthrie: I move that subsection 5 be struck out, and the following be substituted therefor:
No spiritous or ifermented liquors or strong drinks shall he sold or given at any hotel, tavern, shop or other place within the limits of any polling division during the whole of the polling day at any election.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I repeat the objection I raised to the clause as it stood before, and I would ask the minister to insert before the word " place " the word " public," or to adopt some other language that will safeguard the liberty of a man's home.


Hugh Guthrie: I think we should adopt the section as amended.
Amendment agreed to and section as amended agreed to.
On section 66-counting and reporting the vote:


Hugh Guthrie: There are some clerical errors in that clause. On page 47, line 3, the word " defaced " appears. Throughout the other sections the word " spoiled " is used. I beg to move:
That clause 66 be amended by striking out the word " defaced " in line 28, and substitute the word " spoiled."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Hugh Guthrie: On page 48, subsection
7 it says: " This large envelope shall be sealed." I beg to move:
That the word " then " be inserted after the word " shall '' in the 51st line, page 48.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Subsections 8 and 9 are new, and with that exception this is practically a repetition of the old Act?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Subsections 8 and 9 are good subsections.
Mr. GUTHRIE; There is little change in the language but it is really a consolidation of the old sections.


Mr.   M@: There is some qualification about Prince Edward Island.


Hugh Guthrie: That is omitted from
this section.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Hugh Boulton Morphy: In subsection 8 it is
provided that the ballot box shall " be carried free in the Canadian mails as registered matter." It occurred to me that under the regulations that might involve the delay of a day unless the words were added " by special delivery." Under the regulations with reference to registered matter you practically lose a day because notice is given on "one day and the parcel is sent the next.	*	[DOT]


Hugh Guthrie: I like the old section.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is just one point in connection with the suggestion that the hon. member (Mr. Morphy) has made. The provision about the ballot box being carried as registered matter seems to have been put in for the purpose of safety and security in delivery. If you introduce the words " special delivery " it will take the ballot box out of the hands of those persons specially entrusted with registered matter and put it in the hands of messengers who are simply handling special delivery matter.


Hugh Guthrie: I think if it goes by
registered mail it would be satisfactory. I believe that we can expect the Post Office Department to deliver the boxes [DOT] with reasonable speed.


James McCrie Douglas: .Subsection 1 of
section 66 provides that the ballots shall be counted in the presence of at least three electors. Is that a provision that has always been in effect under the old law?


Hugh Guthrie: It has been in effect
for a long time.


James McCrie Douglas: It has not been carried out.


Hugh Guthrie: As a rule there have
been more than that present where I live.


James McCrie Douglas: In a rural district there may not be that number in a poll.
Section as amended agreed to.

On section 68-adjournment if ballot boxes are missing, etc.:


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This section
is identical with the old Act, is it not?


Hugh Guthrie: All of it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 70-recount by judge:
Hugh Guthrie: There are one or two
clerical errors here. In line 28, page 52, appear the words "several returning officers." It should be "several deputy returning officers." I move that the change be made.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Hugh Guthrie: On line 21, page 53,
there is a reference to section 66. It should be section 67.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: There was
some reference in the old Act, section 193, to the judges of the Superior Courts of Saskatchewan and Alberta. That reference is omitted in this clause, and I would ask if there is any significance in the change.
' Mr. GUTHRIE:	In Saskatchewan they
have both Superior Court and District Court judges. The District Court judges correspond as nearly as possible with the County Court judges in the province of Ontario. It is to the District Court judges that these recounts go, and in the province of Ontario to the County Court judges. A different system is in vogue in the province of Quebec. There they have no County Court judges, and the recounts in that province go to the Superior Court judges. The proper officials now to conduct the recount in the .province of Saskatchewan would be the District Court judges.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What about
Alberta?


Hugh Guthrie: Alberta is the same now.


John Howard Sinclair: I would ask the minister why he left out section 201 in the old Act which provides that the judge may review the decision of a returning officer in case of the loss of a ballot box.


Hugh Guthrie: Section 201 is in as part of subsection 4:
He shall also, it necessary or requires, review the decision of the returning officer with respect to the number of votes given for a candidate, etc.
There has been a re-arrangement of the old sections, but I think the sense and the language have been very well preserved.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Sections 99 and 201 of the old Act are combined?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 71-procedure if the judge fails to comply.
Georges Henri Boivin: Is it the desire of the committee that this clause be read?


Hugh Guthrie: It is purely formal.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Are there any clerical errors in it?


Hugh Guthrie: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This section is the same as that in the old Act?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, word for word of
each clause, I think.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 72-election return:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: How longTs
it going to take a candidate to get back his deposit under subsection 5?


Hugh Guthrie: In the case of a recount it might take a couple of weeks, but ordinarily it should not take more than six days.
Mr. FIELDING. This question arose on a previous section.


Hugh Guthrie: There no limit was imposed on when the deposit should be returned.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not recollect
whether my hon. friend gave us any parti' cular reason why we should depart from the present practice whereby the returning officer pays over the money to the candidate.


Hugh Guthrie: In some cases the present practice has not been found very satisfactory, in fact, there have been great delays on the part of some returning officers in repaying the money, and it was thought it would be more secure and satisfactory if the deposit went to the Auditor General.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 74-report to speaker by Chief Electoral Officer of suggestion regarding working of law: to be submitted to Parliament.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is all
new.


Hugh Guthrie: It is consequent upon
the new office that we have created. It was drafted by Mr. Gisborne, and I think it is a very useful section.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

On section 75-Chief Electoral Officer to retain papers, etc.:
Hugh Guthrie: The reference is omitted from the last paragraph; it should be section 228 of the old Act,.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is the third
subsection new?


Hugh Guthrie: No, it is all part of section 228 of the old Act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 76-fees and expenses of election officers:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is the significance of the italics in subsection 5?


Hugh Guthrie: I understand that we shall have to place a resolution on the Order Paper in regard to the payment of these fees after the Bill goes through committee and before it is read the third time.


Mr. STEELE:: I should like to direct the attention of the minister to some of these fees in the schedule.


Hugh Guthrie: Well, we have not yet come to that. This section will have to stand until the resolution is adopted.
Section 76 stands.
On section 77-how disagreements as to taxation of expenses settled:


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Gisborne and the Auditor General have discussed the matter of this provision and have drafted a new clause. If it meets with the approval of the committee I suggest that it be substituted for the present section 77. It reads as follows:
The Auditor General shall, in accordance with this Act, tax and pay all election expense accounts. Any disagreement between the Auditor General and any claimant shall be referred to the Chief Electoral Officer and he shall either confirm the action of th^ Auditor General, or if he disagrees, then, if the question involves only the legal right of a person claiming payment to be paid at all, it shall be referred to and be finally resolved by the Treasury Board, or if the question involves only the fairness of the amount payable to any person with relation to the services or materials supplied, it shall be referred to and shall be finally resolved by the Secretary of State. Notwithstanding anything in this section contained the rights, if any, of all claimants to compel payment or further payment by a process of law shall remain unimpaired.


William Stevens Fielding: I admit that that is a practical solution of the difficulty, but is it not a departure from the whole theory upon which the work of the Auditor General is based?


Hugh Guthrie: I agree that it is a departure, but the practice has grown up of having election accounts actually taxed by the Auditor General. In some outlying constituencies the accounts are rather heavy and difficulty has arisen in connection witn their adjustment. When this Bill was drafted it was proposed to allow the Chief Electoral Officer and the Auditor General to adjust these accounts, but, as I have stated a new clause was drafted as the result of a conference between the Auditor General and the Chief Electoral Officer.


John Howard Sinclair: I suggest that the Chief Electoral Officer should tax the accounts, which then would be subject to review by the Auditor General. The Chief Electoral Officer is a better judge of what has happened than the Auditor General. The Auditor General knows nothing about it.


Hugh Guthrie: Oh, yes, he does.


John Howard Sinclair: During the last election many disputes arose throughout the country in connection with the expenses of the election. Some cases of considerable hardship to the returning officers occurred in the province from which I come. There is a provision in the law which requires a notice to be put up with the proclamation. Proclamations were sent out from the Dominion elections officer in Ottawa without that notice. Discovery of the omission was made later, and telegrams were sent to returning officers all over Canada instructing them that if the proclamations had not been put up, these notices should now go with them, and that in cases where they had been put up, the notices should be put up as well. But when the accounts came in the Auditor General would not pay for the putting up of the second notice, though in some of the outlying districts a good deal of money was spent in that connection. Can the minister say whether these disputed-accounts have been settled?


Hugh Guthrie: I have no knowledge of the matter.	.


William Stevens Fielding: I cannot recall any case where the Auditor General has been treated as an executive officer. The theory upon which the Auditor General works is that he is the watchdog of the treasury. He does not initiate anything, but all expenses come under his review, and if they do not meet with his favour he vetos them if possible, or if the amount has been paid he makes a note of the matter in his bluebook; this is brought down to Parliament and if we agree with him we call the Government to account. To make him an executive officer

may be the only way out of the difficulty, but theoretically it is not right.


Hugh Guthrie: I am not positive, but I am inclined to think that the Auditor General has for a long time taxed the allowances and expenses of judges.


William Stevens Fielding: In the sense that all
these things come under his review.


Hugh Guthrie: It is my impression that he actually fixes them. I have heard some complaints on the subject, but this provision would be along the same line.
Mr. GLASS':	There might be some improved machinery for the adjusting of these election accounts. In many cases there has been hardship as well as a great deal of bitter feeling and dissatisfaction in this connection. They have to pass under the purview of one person who has many other duties to perform, and many months elapse before they are adjusted; sometimes it takes even more than a year. The returning officer has in some cases as many as 65 or 70 deputies; each of these has poll clerks and other officials, and all payments to these different officials are held up until one man at headquarters at Ottawa can adjust the details of accounts from some 235 constituencies.
The machinery has not been adequate to meet promptly the needs in connection with the adjustment of these matters. If it were possible, as the hon. member (Mr. Fielding) suggested, that some other competent official had delegated to him the passing of these accounts, tvith .the Auditor General acting as the watchdog and auditing them for him afterwards, that would result in a very much more speedy adjustment of these accounts and would give better satisfaction to the thousands of officials who have to act in connection with a federal election.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Had not this clause better stand for further consideration? I should like to point out to my hon. friend that the next few clauses contain a good deal of entirely new legislation; they are copied from the English Act and the like, and they are very long clauses. There are only about a baker's dozen of my hon. friend's friends on the other side, and it is pretty late; we have done a lot of work on this measure to-day and I think we should adjourn.
Section stands.
Progress reported.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Guthrie, the House adjourned at 9.55 p.m.
Monday, April 12, 1920.